As mentioned on GamePolitics.com, earlier this week, the UK's Channel 4 put together an interesting report on the use of Predator drones by the US Army. Many of the key issues are identified and discussed:
- the legality of drone strikes
- the appropriateness of the recourse to technological solutions for political problems
- how (military) technologies become gendered and tied to conceptions of honor
- the problem of proliferation (if you think this is far fetched, check out the DIY Drone community who build kit for recreational/non-military purposes)
But what is perhaps most fascinating is the claim that drones are changing military culture and tactical doctrine to the point where they are now referred to as 'Army crack'.
Given that drones are a dual-use technology that also allow for the overt and covert use of force, what might it mean for understandings of modern warfare--or the popular identification of war itself--if the US military is indeed 'addicted' to the use of drones? Moreover, what happens to our spatial understanding of war-fighting when combat can be initiated and completed by individuals situated thousands of miles away from the theater of operation? Will actions traditionally considered to be acts of war become recoded as something else? What will be the political consequences of such a recoding?
These are but some of the questions that continue to motivate my project on assassination and targeted killing...
Many thanks to my colleague Martin Coward for alerting me to this story.
Comments